Intel will Unleash 32-nm Processors on January 7th

[guzhogi]

So what is happening?
the MacWorld Expo already happened Janu. 9th-13th?
Or it's gonna happen Jan. 9th-13th this upcoming year?
Confused,..

Macworld has been moved to February 9th-13th this year>Are we going back in time?! yay!

I think someone didn't hear that Apple's not going to Macworld anymore…

 

[aumnevergiveup]

i want dedicated graphics card

 

[Michael CM1]

Core Duo or Core 2 Duo (Merom)? Given the 2 GB of RAM I suspect it's a Core Duo. Both parts are in 65 nm.

It's a Core2Duo. I've got 3GB of RAM now, which is the max. If that's the case, I'm guessing a 32nm processor uses a lot less power than 65nm. Knowing technology, it's probably 10 times faster as well. I swear, I wonder how much power my office would save if we switched from a lot of 15-year-old Power Mac G3s to Mac minis with LCD monitors. Those new ones brag about low power usage, and I'm sure that wasn't an issue with the Power Mac G3 models a long time ago.

 

[alent1234]

You old fart!

I wonder just how much longer these the battery time will be with these chips. I can't wait for a benchmark, so I can lament even more over my 3 hour battery life!

most of the battery issues are due to hard drive and network gear. CPU's have been efficient for a long time now. my iphone will last for days if i don't use the networking

 

[adder7712]

I'm fully aware of the MHz myth, but c'mon, still 2.66 GHz?

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/495/opinion/

MHz is meaningless in the age of cores.

 

[RedTomato]

New i7 chips on the way!

I'm interested in what these will be. I'm just about to buy the parts for building a i7-860 rig for my Windows Server 2008 server admin studies, as well as using it for a hackingtosh and HD video editor.

Guess I may hold off a few more days, see what comes out of this. At the least, hopefully the i7-860 will see a drop in price.

 

[alent1234]

wait, so Apple would have supposedly known about Intel's future offerings being as they have a close enough relationship, so Apple would have maybe known about Intel adding discrete graphics to their CPUs and preventing Nvidia from manufacturing discrete options?

so why would have Apple added Nvidia discrete graphics to their MacBook/Pro line when they may have known about Intel adding their own discrete graphics to Arrandale and therefore creating a graphics performance dead end to their MacBooks. maybe not?

probably because they had test samples and the performance was crappy. the 32nm have been produced for a few months and before that Intel was shipping test samples to customers for a long time. big customers like Apple, Dell, Acer and others get test samples of CPU's months before they start being manufactured for testing. the tech blogs get their samples a few weeks prior to launch under NDA.

a while ago on some blog i read about Intel's QA process in bringing a new CPU to market, and it was very interesting.

 

[alent1234]

New i7 chips on the way!

I'm interested in what these will be. I'm just about to buy the parts for building a i7-860 rig for my Windows Server 2008 server admin studies, as well as using it for a hackingtosh and HD video editor.

Guess I may hold off a few more days, see what comes out of this. At the least, hopefully the i7-860 will see a drop in price.

are the tests that much harder? back in 2000 i passed all my NT4 MCSE tests with no experience.

 

[AidenShaw]

In a laptop it actually makes sense to spread that heat load around.

On the other hand, the CPU already has the heat pipes and radiator/fan - so putting the graphics chip in the same package could make cooling easier. You wouldn't need to extend the heat pipe to cover two packages (the S-shaped tube at the top of the picture).

(click to enlarge)

What version of the i5 & i7 do the current iMacs support?

The 1156 pin Lynnfields - Core i5-750 and Core i7-860

See http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343 1051749233&name=LGA 1156

 

[sampro]

I'm currently holding off my purchase of 13" mbp, but I honestly think only the 15" en 17" will get the new processors + (better?) discrete graphics.

My bet is the 13" will stay C2D + 9400, and prolly a slight CPU boost, bigger HDD, ...

I hope not of course, but I can't see where they'd put the gfx really.

Another question remains: why it's still branded "pro"... Only the unibody design (and what: 1 port?) is what makes it "better" than the MB.

Hell, how Apple even dares to keep selling the 13" at such a premium is beyond me (not really, it's smart from their point of view; ppl keep buying it? No problemo!)

Anyway, if the mbp doesn't get updated before the end of January I'll just buy the 13" and upgrade the HDD (and memory) myself.

same here!, ive been waiting for 2 months already, if they dont have an update by jan, im getting it.

 

[arkmannj]

Could we see Apple use 3 GPU's ?

1) The built in Integrated Graphics (Intel)
2) A medium powered discrete GPU
3) A Full powered discrete GPU

They could have the two discrete gpu's perform like the current 2 GPU's do then just through OpenCL stuff at the integrated one, or even possible allow the system to balance between the three, this could help with saving on power usage when just doing regular stuff like email/spreadsheets/etc... but then any combination of all of them could be activated depending on the current graphics needs beyond that.

/just wishing maybe ?

 

[sampro]

I totally agree, Im looking to buy the 13" pro but the spec isnt different enough for me to justify the extra money. I would just buy the 13" macbook but i've heard bad things about the plastic breaking and lets face it the MBP is far nicer looking machine.

Duno wither to buy now or not tho.

if you go on ebay you could get a 13" MBP for the same price as the macbook, you could get one for $1,100 easy, and its SEALED in box, no taxes and free shipping too, a macbook at apple would cost $1,100 after taxes anyway so its a better deal to get yours on ebay. thats what im going to do

 

[igazza]

i want dedicated graphics card

I'm hoping we get ATI Mobility Radeon HD graphics cards

 

[edmundo]

I totally agree, Im looking to buy the 13" pro but the spec isnt different enough for me to justify the extra money. I would just buy the 13" macbook but i've heard bad things about the plastic breaking and lets face it the MBP is far nicer looking machine.

Duno wither to buy now or not tho.

I'd say wait, it's pretty much certain Apple will at least refresh the MBP line during the first semester of 2010, probably first trimester.

Another way of doing it is to have all 4 cores running at 25%, which electrically, uses much less power than a single core running at 100%.

No it doesn't, at least not in the i* cores which have much better power gating than previous generations and can therefore completely shut down unused cores.

No, they'll not "annihilate" your battery.

Yes they will.

Uh, lots of graphic, 3D, video and music apps.
And anybody who does heavy multitasking.

What the hell are you talking about, why are you changing the subject and why don't you make any sense?

Oh, I get it. Because you can get quad cores in $800 PC laptops
and not in $3,000 MBPs, you don't need them and never will.
That is, until Apple offers them.

Dude you should lay off the crack pipe, I'd love a nice 25~35W TDP quad in my mac. There are no nice light quads on the market right now.

Kind of reminds me how stupid everybody said FM tuners were in iPods.
Until Apple started "innovating" and offered FM tuners in iPods.
10 years after other MP3 players had them.

FM tuners are stupid in everything.

In recognition of your efforts, I'm proud to announce you as Fanboi of the day.

And I fear I have to announce you as the irrelevant moron of the day.

 

[gnasher729]

Since Intel has not made a good graphics processor yet why do they insist on wasting all of those transistors? Wouldn't theyy be better used as cache storage?

Have a look at the market for Windows laptops. Last time I looked everything below say £800 had integrated graphics (I didn't try very hard though). The vast majority of laptops will use integrated graphics and nothing else. And in my experience, the 3 year old integrated graphics in my MacBook can run the MacBook monitor and a 1920 x 1200 screen at the same time; it's fine as long as you don't run any games on it.

That said, Arrandale + Intel integrated graphics would be a significant step down from current low-end MacBooks, which won't go down well with the public. That said, it is completely fine for _many_ users while being completely unacceptable for many others. So what is Apple going to do?

Obviously they can sell Arrandale + 9600 or something similar. I would guess they don't want three different models. So the second model would be either integrated or some cheap discrete card, comparable to a 9400. Or maybe they would have three models. That would be a choice of integrated (cheap), discrete somewhere between 9400 and 9600 (not expensive), discrete far better than 9600 (expensive).

No it doesn't, at least not in the i* cores which have much better power gating than previous generations and can therefore completely shut down unused cores.

Yes, four cores at 25% speed use less power than one core at 100% speed, even on the i7. You reduce the clock speed by a factor four, you have four times as many cores (so we are even), but you also reduce the voltage, and that is where you save power.

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

Unless the on chip graphics are truly dire (and this is Intel so they could be), I can't see Apple going to the expense of another integrated graphics card. However Intel are claiming to offer full HD acceleration of 2 HD streams which would please a lot of Mac owners. Likewise the support for dual displays.

The i3 doesn't include Turbo Boost. I can see Apple putting these in the Macbook and maybe the 13" Macbook Pro. They might even end up in later iMacs. But these will be later generations when the power consumption is lower.

 

[gnasher729]

What benefits are there from a newly architected core i-thingy if its still dual core? Don't we need to wait for quad core to get a big boost in speed? And even then, do we have any visibility on what kind of application support there will be to properly leverage multiple cores in the next 12 months or so?

1. Arrandale is dual core + hyperthreading, which is often better than dual core.
2. Arrandale uses the improvements made in Nehalem, so it has higher performance at same clock speed than Core 2 Duo.
3. Snow Leopard is all about making better use of multiple cores.

 

[cmaier]

most of the battery issues are due to hard drive and network gear. CPU's have been efficient for a long time now. my iphone will last for days if i don't use the networking

Um, no. A typical laptop CPU draws 30-50 watts. A typical phone CPU draws 1 watt. On your phone, the network draw is a big deal. On your laptop, no so much.

 

[SaltyPiratePony]

this may be slightly off topic, but:

what would heavily use the graphics card on your mbp when you're not:
a) gaming
b) rendering some video (or doing some heavy audio work? dunno)
c) watching some HD movie on a big-ass TV, streaming it from your laptop

/EDIT: wait: audio? That's just ridiculous now I think about it. Unless it's using the 1337 nvidia CUDA technology using the gfxcard (or is that totally crazy?)

 

[cmaier]

Yes, four cores at 25% speed use less power than one core at 100% speed, even on the i7. You reduce the clock speed by a factor four, you have four times as many cores (so we are even), but you also reduce the voltage, and that is where you save power.

reducing voltage would save power, but what makes you think they do that? Typically voltage is constant in a CPU, and is determined by the required noise margin (which is a function of device threshold voltage and wire crosstalk). Voltage cannot be reduced below the point where the noise margin dominates, and is usually fixed above that point.

Does intel really reduce voltage when reducing clock?

 

[jgerry]

I'm waiting to upgrade my 3 year old MBP, but I'm not seeing a compelling reason to do so until we get significantly better chips. I am hoping for Arrandale (dual core w/ hyperthreading, so four virtual cores, correct?) + integrated graphics + a significantly better discrete graphics solution. Actually, I could probably live without the better discrete graphics, but with OpenCL, I suspect the usable life of any new machine will be much longer if it has a more powerful discrete graphics card.

 

[smiddlehurst]

Al MBP's have integrated graphics, but the most of the 15 inchers and the 17 inch have additional 9600M GT graphics card. So Nvidia/ATI cannot make integrated graphics for these processors, but they can make discrete graphics. If this issue doesn't get resolved, we'll most likely see these processors with the Intel integrated graphics and ATI/Nvidia for discrete graphics. I'm worried about the 13" MBP, though. It currently does not have the option of a discrete card, so if gets Arrandale, we're back to intel graphics (square 1) with no other options. I'm thinking we'll finally see discrete graphics on the 13 MBP? I have Mid 2007 MacBook with the Intel GMA 950, and it's terrible. The machine overall is great, but the graphics on here, ugh.

I really doubt it for one very good reason: The Macbook.

There's surely no WAY that Apple will release a 13" MBP with a worse performing GPU that that found in the cheaper MB. It's already a bit embarassing that the MB has better specs than the MBP, even if it is only because of the extra hard disk space, it makes no sense to have the more expensive machine benchmarking lower. There's some other reasons too but that's the most obvious one.

If I was in Apple's position I'd take the integrated GPU as the default to minimise power consumption then bung in a discrete graphics chip for those times you need grunt. Just vary the chip so the 13" and low end 15" give a reasonable but not spectacular performance and the higher end machines are properly powerful (uh, within the thermal design requirements of the unibody case obviously, not that Apple would ever push that particular envelope... cough).

 

[RedTomato]

reducing voltage would save power, but what makes you think they do that? Typically voltage is constant in a CPU, and is determined by the required noise margin (which is a function of device threshold voltage and wire crosstalk). Voltage cannot be reduced below the point where the noise margin dominates, and is usually fixed above that point.

Does intel really reduce voltage when reducing clock?

Look up overclocking. There's thousands of overclocking sites across the net. Underclocking is a more recent but also interesting area.

Basically CPU voltage and associated power draw can be highly variable. This also applies to other chips e.g. graphics and RAM chips.

 

[cmaier]

Look up overclocking. There's thousands of overclocking sites across the net. Underclocking is a more recent but also interesting area.

Basically CPU voltage and associated power draw can be highly variable. This also applies to other chips e.g. graphics and RAM chips.

I designed CPUs for 10 years at AMD so I know all about overclocking. Of course I was talking about lowerig, not raising voltage. And I'm talking about dynamically changing voltage, not bios settings. Do the intel chips actually reduce voltage when at low loads, is my question because that's what was suggested. No AMD chip I ever worked on changed voltage dynamically. It had a recommended min and max voltage and it was set in the bios and that was it (ignoring gamers with special motherboards and software).

 

[Eidorian]

I'm fully aware of the MHz myth, but c'mon, still 2.66 GHz?

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/495/opinion/

There's Turbo Boost in two and single core modes. The single core boost is can push certain models past 3.0 GHz.

reducing voltage would save power, but what makes you think they do that? Typically voltage is constant in a CPU, and is determined by the required noise margin (which is a function of device threshold voltage and wire crosstalk). Voltage cannot be reduced below the point where the noise margin dominates, and is usually fixed above that point.

Does intel really reduce voltage when reducing clock?

SpeedStep and Cool n' Quiet reduce the voltages when at idle speeds. My Core i5 750 goes to 0.86 V on idle and 1.26 V at full load.